Quiggle v. Prouty (1896) · DecisionDepot

Quiggle v. Prouty

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 16, 1896 No. S. F. No. 105Published

Before: Temple

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a broker is not entitled to a commission when there is no evidence that they negotiated the sale of the property as required by the terms of the contract.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover commissions for the sale of a lot under the terms of the broker's contract.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A broker’s contract, like .any other, is governed by its terms.”

“There is no evidence showing, or tending to show, that plaintiff negotiated a sale of the property placed in his hands.”

Synopsis

Real Estate Broker—Commissions—Contract.—A real estate broker who makes a contract with a property owner can recover commissions only in accordance with such contract.

TEMPLE, J. The only question involved in this appeal is whether plaintiff is entitled to recover commissions for the sale of a lot at Sacramento. Defendant placed with plaintiff, as broker, a certain lot for sale, to remain in his hands for one year, with the condition that “if a sale of said property shall be negotiated during that time by the said Chas. Quiggle, directly or indirectly, for the amount stipulated, or any less amount which I may accept, .... I promise to pay the said Chas. Quiggle a commission of five per cent on the amount of said sale.” A broker’s contract, like .any other, is governed by its terms. There is no evidence showing, or tending to show, that plaintiff negotiated a sale of the property placed in his hands. The judgment is affirmed.

.We concur: McFarland, J.; Henshaw, J.

Quiggle v. Prouty

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief